Bitcoin Forum
May 22, 2019, 06:09:21 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] $XQN Quotient Financial Network | PoW Scrypt, PoS Blake-256 | UPDATE NOW  (Read 194039 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
CedricQuotient
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 272
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 11:30:49 AM
 #1281

Abacus allocations and instructions posted:

http://www.blockchainsingularity.com/abacus.htm
1558505361
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558505361

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558505361
Reply with quote  #2

1558505361
Report to moderator
Get alert of price pumps/dumps beforehand 74% average Win Rate
reported by our users
TRY NOW!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558505361
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558505361

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558505361
Reply with quote  #2

1558505361
Report to moderator
wickedsick
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 468
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 03:02:48 PM
 #1282

Abacus allocations and instructions posted:

http://www.blockchainsingularity.com/abacus.htm

thanks for the free $XAI

happy new year!  Grin
zeewolf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 100


In dreamland; he awaits you.


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 03:28:51 PM
 #1283

Abacus allocations and instructions posted:

http://www.blockchainsingularity.com/abacus.htm

Thanks! But I'm not sure if shares are calculated correctly, my balance should be higher. I only used one address, controlled by coin control so I am sure all I had was on that address. Is anyone else balance incorrect ?

ethought
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 03:41:36 PM
 #1284

Abacus allocations and instructions posted:

http://www.blockchainsingularity.com/abacus.htm

Thanks! But I'm not sure if shares are calculated correctly, my balance should be higher. I only used one address, controlled by coin control so I am sure all I had was on that address. Is anyone else balance incorrect ?

I think the snapshot was taken on 2014-12-18 (block 51860)

Are you sure of your balance on that day?
zeewolf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 100


In dreamland; he awaits you.


View Profile WWW
January 06, 2015, 05:31:27 PM
 #1285


I think the snapshot was taken on 2014-12-18 (block 51860)

Are you sure of your balance on that day?


Block explorer at http://explorer.quotientcoin.com/address/Qiqe7jiLYRT26hheGhBhWcrNth8UzN5wbk is somewhat showing wrong balances (before block 51860 showing 10k at one point), hard to know. I've calculated it going backwards basing on wallet and it seems it's OK Smiley

incognitoworker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 736
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 06, 2015, 07:41:26 PM
 #1286

How do you guys keep your blocks under 500??
All my blocks autocombine to 1100-1300 each block?
Is there a rpc comand to change wanted block size for staking?
Thnx for free xai, and happy staking!

Quotient- Closed loop economy enviroment experiment
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1195335.0
myagui
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1154
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 11:24:38 PM
 #1287

@incognitoworker:
Mine are also combining. IIRC, this is happening in order to reach a valid stake weight. In other words, the individual/tiny blocks are not carrying enough weight to stake separately. At the current stake cap, I would not be too bothered, it really looks like ~1K is about the block size necessary for frequent staking, at least for now. Yes, you will hit the cap all the time, but so does everyone else (emission is under control).

Happy Staking!

HunterS
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 06, 2015, 11:50:39 PM
 #1288

Abacus allocations and instructions posted:

http://www.blockchainsingularity.com/abacus.htm

Thanks! But I'm not sure if shares are calculated correctly, my balance should be higher. I only used one address, controlled by coin control so I am sure all I had was on that address. Is anyone else balance incorrect ?
Thought the same aswell.I have only one address.And my balance was higher aswell

0bert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 12:15:35 AM
 #1289

Abacus allocations and instructions posted:

http://www.blockchainsingularity.com/abacus.htm
Great!
I signed up and requested a ticket for XAI. I give you updates about it. Smiley
SockPuppetAccount
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 500


MiG Messenger - earn while chatting


View Profile WWW
January 07, 2015, 12:48:09 AM
 #1290

@incognitoworker:
Mine are also combining. IIRC, this is happening in order to reach a valid stake weight. In other words, the individual/tiny blocks are not carrying enough weight to stake separately. At the current stake cap, I would not be too bothered, it really looks like ~1K is about the block size necessary for frequent staking, at least for now. Yes, you will hit the cap all the time, but so does everyone else (emission is under control).

Happy Staking!

I'm confused as to what conditions are necessary to trigger the auto-recombining of blocks and how it comes up with what it deems is the appropriate number of coins to auto-recombine.

As there is no cap on how long a given block of coins can gain stake weight, it seems as if the ideal staking strategy here would be to have all of your coins broken down into as many small blocks of coins as possible as just about any block of coins is always going to max out the reward possible anyway whether its a block of a few thousand coins that stakes after a day or a block of 5 coins that stakes after 6 months.

Imagine we have 2 addresses each starting off with the same quantity of XQN.  The first address keeps all their coins combined into 1 block at all times, while the second address has all its coins split into 10 blocks of coins at all times.  While each address may contain the same number of coins at the outset, we should expect the second address to end up staking more blocks on average.  Why is that?  Well even though the big block in address 1 stakes more frequently than the individual little blocks in address 2, all the coins in address 1 end up spending a good chunk of their time maturing after staking and waiting to become re-eligible for staking, effectively cutting address 1 out of the running to stake another block for long stretches of time.  Even though the individual blocks 1/10 the size contained in address 2 each take on average 10x as long to stake as the one big block in address 1, address 2 should end up staking more blocks in the end as when address 2 does stake a block, it still leaves most of its coins free to continue competing for more stake blocks and is hence never out of the running.  Since pretty much anything that stakes is going to end up hitting the max reward of 16.18 by the time it stakes anyway, XQN for all intents and purposes has a flat reward such as ORB and CLAMS right now.

To sum up the point I am trying to make, if all of this is logically sound, then the ideal staking strategy for XQN would be to have all of your coins broken down into as many small blocks as possible at all times.  If this is the case, it is a bit frustrating that the auto-recombining of blocks is hampering me from implementing an ideal staking strategy.  Further, encouraging stakers to keep all of their coins broken down into many small blocks increases security for the blockchain as well.  A hoard of stakers obsessively breaking down there coins into smaller and smaller blocks will drive the competition for blocks and the network difficulty sky high.

Cedric, remove the auto-recombination of coins please.  It is counter productive and discouraging active stakers from implementing what is good for themselves and the XQN network.
anticlimax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 04:03:11 AM
 #1291

@incognitoworker:
Mine are also combining. IIRC, this is happening in order to reach a valid stake weight. In other words, the individual/tiny blocks are not carrying enough weight to stake separately. At the current stake cap, I would not be too bothered, it really looks like ~1K is about the block size necessary for frequent staking, at least for now. Yes, you will hit the cap all the time, but so does everyone else (emission is under control).

Happy Staking!

I'm confused as to what conditions are necessary to trigger the auto-recombining of blocks and how it comes up with what it deems is the appropriate number of coins to auto-recombine.

As there is no cap on how long a given block of coins can gain stake weight, it seems as if the ideal staking strategy here would be to have all of your coins broken down into as many small blocks of coins as possible as just about any block of coins is always going to max out the reward possible anyway whether its a block of a few thousand coins that stakes after a day or a block of 5 coins that stakes after 6 months.

Imagine we have 2 addresses each starting off with the same quantity of XQN.  The first address keeps all their coins combined into 1 block at all times, while the second address has all its coins split into 10 blocks of coins at all times.  While each address may contain the same number of coins at the outset, we should expect the second address to end up staking more blocks on average.  Why is that?  Well even though the big block in address 1 stakes more frequently than the individual little blocks in address 2, all the coins in address 1 end up spending a good chunk of their time maturing after staking and waiting to become re-eligible for staking, effectively cutting address 1 out of the running to stake another block for long stretches of time.  Even though the individual blocks 1/10 the size contained in address 2 each take on average 10x as long to stake as the one big block in address 1, address 2 should end up staking more blocks in the end as when address 2 does stake a block, it still leaves most of its coins free to continue competing for more stake blocks and is hence never out of the running.  Since pretty much anything that stakes is going to end up hitting the max reward of 16.18 by the time it stakes anyway, XQN for all intents and purposes has a flat reward such as ORB and CLAMS right now.

To sum up the point I am trying to make, if all of this is logically sound, then the ideal staking strategy for XQN would be to have all of your coins broken down into as many small blocks as possible at all times.  If this is the case, it is a bit frustrating that the auto-recombining of blocks is hampering me from implementing an ideal staking strategy.  Further, encouraging stakers to keep all of their coins broken down into many small blocks increases security for the blockchain as well.  A hoard of stakers obsessively breaking down there coins into smaller and smaller blocks will drive the competition for blocks and the network difficulty sky high.

Cedric, remove the auto-recombination of coins please.  It is counter productive and discouraging active stakers from implementing what is good for themselves and the XQN network.

I honestly haven't seen blocks recombine, maybe I am just oblivious to what it's doing.

twitter @antiiclimax
anticlimax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 04:03:43 AM
 #1292

Abacus allocations and instructions posted:

http://www.blockchainsingularity.com/abacus.htm

Thanks! But I'm not sure if shares are calculated correctly, my balance should be higher. I only used one address, controlled by coin control so I am sure all I had was on that address. Is anyone else balance incorrect ?
Thought the same aswell.I have only one address.And my balance was higher aswell

Are you using a stealth address?

twitter @antiiclimax
Farndogg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 73
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 04:10:51 AM
 #1293

Mine combined and I'm not using a stealth addy.

Abacus allocations and instructions posted:

http://www.blockchainsingularity.com/abacus.htm

Thanks! But I'm not sure if shares are calculated correctly, my balance should be higher. I only used one address, controlled by coin control so I am sure all I had was on that address. Is anyone else balance incorrect ?
Thought the same aswell.I have only one address.And my balance was higher aswell

Are you using a stealth address?
HunterS
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 04:15:49 AM
 #1294

Abacus allocations and instructions posted:

http://www.blockchainsingularity.com/abacus.htm

Thanks! But I'm not sure if shares are calculated correctly, my balance should be higher. I only used one address, controlled by coin control so I am sure all I had was on that address. Is anyone else balance incorrect ?
Thought the same aswell.I have only one address.And my balance was higher aswell

Are you using a stealth address?
no

billotronic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1000


Crackpot Idealist


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 05:10:30 AM
 #1295

Mine combined and I'm not using a stealth addy.

Abacus allocations and instructions posted:

http://www.blockchainsingularity.com/abacus.htm

Thanks! But I'm not sure if shares are calculated correctly, my balance should be higher. I only used one address, controlled by coin control so I am sure all I had was on that address. Is anyone else balance incorrect ?
Thought the same aswell.I have only one address.And my balance was higher aswell

Are you using a stealth address?

same here and it completely pissed me right the fuck off.

This post sums up why all this bullshit is a scam
Read It. Hate It. Change the facts that it represents.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1606638.msg16139644#msg16139644
SockPuppetAccount
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 500


MiG Messenger - earn while chatting


View Profile WWW
January 07, 2015, 05:13:04 AM
 #1296

@incognitoworker:
Mine are also combining. IIRC, this is happening in order to reach a valid stake weight. In other words, the individual/tiny blocks are not carrying enough weight to stake separately. At the current stake cap, I would not be too bothered, it really looks like ~1K is about the block size necessary for frequent staking, at least for now. Yes, you will hit the cap all the time, but so does everyone else (emission is under control).

Happy Staking!

I'm confused as to what conditions are necessary to trigger the auto-recombining of blocks and how it comes up with what it deems is the appropriate number of coins to auto-recombine.

As there is no cap on how long a given block of coins can gain stake weight, it seems as if the ideal staking strategy here would be to have all of your coins broken down into as many small blocks of coins as possible as just about any block of coins is always going to max out the reward possible anyway whether its a block of a few thousand coins that stakes after a day or a block of 5 coins that stakes after 6 months.

Imagine we have 2 addresses each starting off with the same quantity of XQN.  The first address keeps all their coins combined into 1 block at all times, while the second address has all its coins split into 10 blocks of coins at all times.  While each address may contain the same number of coins at the outset, we should expect the second address to end up staking more blocks on average.  Why is that?  Well even though the big block in address 1 stakes more frequently than the individual little blocks in address 2, all the coins in address 1 end up spending a good chunk of their time maturing after staking and waiting to become re-eligible for staking, effectively cutting address 1 out of the running to stake another block for long stretches of time.  Even though the individual blocks 1/10 the size contained in address 2 each take on average 10x as long to stake as the one big block in address 1, address 2 should end up staking more blocks in the end as when address 2 does stake a block, it still leaves most of its coins free to continue competing for more stake blocks and is hence never out of the running.  Since pretty much anything that stakes is going to end up hitting the max reward of 16.18 by the time it stakes anyway, XQN for all intents and purposes has a flat reward such as ORB and CLAMS right now.

To sum up the point I am trying to make, if all of this is logically sound, then the ideal staking strategy for XQN would be to have all of your coins broken down into as many small blocks as possible at all times.  If this is the case, it is a bit frustrating that the auto-recombining of blocks is hampering me from implementing an ideal staking strategy.  Further, encouraging stakers to keep all of their coins broken down into many small blocks increases security for the blockchain as well.  A hoard of stakers obsessively breaking down there coins into smaller and smaller blocks will drive the competition for blocks and the network difficulty sky high.

Cedric, remove the auto-recombination of coins please.  It is counter productive and discouraging active stakers from implementing what is good for themselves and the XQN network.

I honestly haven't seen blocks recombine, maybe I am just oblivious to what it's doing.


To me it looked like it has been sweeping multiple small blocks into larger ones for whatever reason but now that you said something maybe I've got it wrong and all it is doing is not splitting blocks after they stake if they take too long to do so.  Possible I'm seeing something happening that isn't there, I need to pay closer attention I guess.
myagui
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1154
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 07, 2015, 10:34:31 AM
 #1297

To me it looked like it has been sweeping multiple small blocks into larger ones for whatever reason but now that you said something maybe I've got it wrong and all it is doing is not splitting blocks after they stake if they take too long to do so.  Possible I'm seeing something happening that isn't there, I need to pay closer attention I guess.

I can positively confirm that tiny blocks are frequently combining when they stake (I have several of size 200~300 that did so, resulting in about 1K~1.3K block size after the stake), but similarly, if such a merged block stakes fast enough next time, it will split (just had one, merged into 1K, and at the next stake, has split into 2x 500).

Based on how slow/fast blocks are staking, they either merge, split, or remain at their original size (plus stake reward). I have all 3 examples in stakes from my last 24 hours, and the wallet seems to be doing a pretty good job. Some more advanced controls over the various thresholds would be really nice though.  Wink

Happy Staking!

CedricQuotient
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 272
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 07:30:22 PM
 #1298

Could you guys provide me with a couple of example transactions where this is occurring, a couple links to the block explorer?  I guess I'm getting caught up semantically with the terminology, but when I think of blocks I'm thinking of....well, blocks in the blockchain.  When you are talking about splitting and auto-recombining of blocks, I think you mean that your UTXO's (unspent tx outputs) are getting combined in the stake transaction, but from quickly clicking through a few blocks in the block explorer I haven't been able to track down a live example of this happening.

I'd like to see it in the block explorer...
anticlimax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 07:50:13 PM
Last edit: January 08, 2015, 05:36:58 AM by anticlimax
 #1299

Could you guys provide me with a couple of example transactions where this is occurring, a couple links to the block explorer?  I guess I'm getting caught up semantically with the terminology, but when I think of blocks I'm thinking of....well, blocks in the blockchain.  When you are talking about splitting and auto-recombining of blocks, I think you mean that your UTXO's (unspent tx outputs) are getting combined in the stake transaction, but from quickly clicking through a few blocks in the block explorer I haven't been able to track down a live example of this happening.

I'd like to see it in the block explorer...

What they mean is that the individual stacks of coins in their wallets are recombining.
I'd think splitting and recombining of blocks will happen more frequently in the next little while as the wallet tries to figure out the optimal size per stack to stake efficiently.

I can say that I have a few stacks over 3000 coins which haven't split. I find stacks of 500-800 work best.

twitter @antiiclimax
CedricQuotient
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 272
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 07, 2015, 08:04:34 PM
 #1300

Could you guys provide me with a couple of example transactions where this is occurring, a couple links to the block explorer?  I guess I'm getting caught up semantically with the terminology, but when I think of blocks I'm thinking of....well, blocks in the blockchain.  When you are talking about splitting and auto-recombining of blocks, I think you mean that your UTXO's (unspent tx outputs) are getting combined in the stake transaction, but from quickly clicking through a few blocks in the block explorer I haven't been able to track down a live example of this happening.

I'd like to see it in the block explorer...

What they mean is that the individual stacks of coins in their wallets are recombining.
I'd think splitting and recombining of blocks will happen more frequently in the next little while as the wallet tries to figure out the optimal size per stack to stake efficiently.

I can say that I have a few blocks over 3000 coins which haven't split. I find stacks of 500-800 seem to work well.
Right...what I'm trying to determine is if it is just a UI/presentation thing in coin control, or if there is something actually happening on a transaction level.
Pages: « 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!